|
|
Origins of Traditional Christianity Taken from pages 212-223 After Jesus: The Triumph of Christianity Chapter Seven THY KINGDOM COME The unthinkable had happened. Rome's new co-emperor Constantine supported Christianity! Soon the church, under his patronage, would forge a lasting creed. Pagans would fight back but in vain. Meanwhile, a New Rome would arise in the East. With the peace of Constantine, many Christians no doubt hoped, as their imperial champion did, that a golden age was at hand. In keeping with such longings, Constantine came to feel, in the second decade of his rule, that his new Christian empire should have a new capital city. He chose the small Greek seaport of Byzantium (present-day Istanbul, Turkey) for its site. It was one of the most ambitious urban renewal projects in history. In a span of about six years, from 324 to 330, little Byzantium underwent major changes in its transformation from modest seaport to metropolis. Under Constantine's direction an army of artisans descended on the city to work on scores of projects, from a basilica to an imperial palace to a newly enlarged hippodrome. On the triangle of land that served as the crossroads of Europe and Asia, Nova Roma ("New Rome") took shape. Posterity commonly referred to it as Constantinople ("City of Constantine"). The glittering jewel on the Bosporus eventually supplanted Rome as the center of the empire. This story of the shift of power to the East dates from the days of Constantine's rise as emperor. After his victory at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine marched triumphantly into Rome on October 29, 312. The procession most likely wound through the city, giving the crowds a chance to catch a rare glimpse of their new ruler. One source ways that his nickname among the people was "Bullneck." Surviving likenesses confirm this; he was built like a wrestler. As in other official processions, Constantine would have been flanked by a guard of honor in gilt or silver armor and accompanied by silk banners that floated ballonlike in the autumn air. That day, after passing through the Porta Triumphalis, along the Via Sacra, and into the Forum Romanum, Constantine met with the Senate, which confirmed him in the rank of augustus, or senior emperor. Although Constantine had acknowledged God's help in his battle against Maxentius, apparently at first he had no exclusive commitment to Christianity. He seemed to pick and choose from Christian and pagan beliefs. While he no doubt approved when the Senate commissioned a statue of him with a Christian symbol in one hand, he also authorized a medallion that attributed his liberation of Rome to the sun god Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun"). And he retained the title of pontifex maximus, or chief priest of the state religion. (The popes later adopted the same title.) Why did Constantine champion Christianity? The vision he claimed to have had before the battle at the Milvian Bridge possibly made an impression that deepened with the telling. Perhaps his mother, Helena, a Christian convert, had influenced him. It is even more likely that Constantine looked on Christianity from the standpoint of a pragmatist. He had seen Christians defy the odds and survive major persecutions in his lifetime. Though they were a numerically weak minority, Christians had evolved into a strong faction throughout the empire. Constantine most likely perceived that the church's extensive network could prove an invaluable aid to unifying, and subsequently ruling, a far-flung empire. The Edict to Milan In February 313 Constantine met with his co-emperor, Licinius, in Milan. Much of their meeting seems to have been taken up with the issue of Christianity and marks a turning point in the history of church-state relations. The two emperors dispatched a letter, which has come to be known as the Edict of Milan, to governors throughout the empire. It ordered that the state should give "complete toleration" to anyone who had "given up his mind either to the cult of the Christians" or one "which he personally feels best for himself." With a stroke of the pen all anti-Christian decrees had been revoked, and the era of persecutions had come to an end. Now Christians were not only free to worship, but their places of worship and other church property were to be returned to them. Not everyone welcomed the Edict of Milan. Maximinus Daia, an enemy of Christianity who shared command of the East with Licinius, said Christians "were to be borne with in a long-suffering and moderate spirit" and that he valued worship of the pagan gods far above the "superstition" of the Christians. Angered at Constantine's promotion to augustus and alarmed by the alliance between Constantine and Licinius, Maximinus Daia moved against Licinius. According to legend, on the eve of an important battle, Licinius dreamed that an angel dictated to him a prayer for victory. Transcripts of the prayer, which could be construed as either Christian or pagan, were duly distributed. The soldiers recited the prayer before the battle and, though outnumbered, emerged victorious. The Donatist controversy Every since the great persecution under Diocletian the African church had been torn by undercurrents of dissension. At issue was the status of Christians who had weakened during the persecution--and behind that, the notion that only people who led blameless lives had a right to belong to the church. A powerful faction of Christians in North Africa, some of them actually eager for martyrdom, branded as "traitors" those church members who under duress had handed over Scriptures to state authorities to be destroyed. More moderate members, often the more well-to-do, declared themselves content with clergy who had gone into hiding instead of openly defying the state authorities. Denunciations and mutual recriminations flew back and forth, until things finally came to a head in 311 with the election of the moderate clergyman Caecilian as bishop of Carthage. Opponents of Caecilian, known as Donatists, claimed that his election was invalid, since he himself had been consecrated by "traitors." The Donatists, mostly from Numidia (in modern Algeria), called a synod of 70 bishops and announced that Caecilian had been deposed. In his place they ordained Majorinus, who died shortly thereafter and was replaced by Donatus, after whom the movement is named. Caecilian and his supporters did not recognize the authority of the synod. Thus, Carthage had two bishops, and the church was threatened with a full-blown schism. Alarmed that Constantine apparently recognized Caecilian (in an offical letter circulated at the time, the emperor referred to "the catholic church over which Caecilian presides"), the Donatists took their case to the emperor himself. On April 15, 313, they delivered a petition that read: "We pray you, most excellent emperor ... whereas there are disputes between us and the other bishops in Africa, we pray that your piety may order judges to be given to us." Constantine did intervene. "In those provinces which divine providence has voluntarily entrusted to my devoted self," the emperor declared, any division was unacceptable. He instructed Caecilian to come to Rome with 10 bishops who supported him and 10 Donatist bishops. They could present their case before Bishop Miltiades of Rome, himself a native of Roman Africa, and three bishops from the province of Gaul. Miltiades added 15 Italian bishops to the court, transforming it into a synod that ruled on matters of doctrine. After several days of testimony, the synod recognized Caecilian and ruled against Donatus. The Donatists did not accept the decision; they asked for a new judgement from Constantine. He was dismayed by the growing rift but agreed to another hearing. This time 33 bishops met in a synod at Arles and again ruled against the Donatists. Constroversy continued to rage as the Donatists refused to accept the verdict. Riots broke out in North Africa, and Donatists who were killed as a result of governmental repression were hailed by their bretheren as martyrs. "I shall come to Africa," Constantine announced, "and shall most fully demonstrate ... as much to Caecilian as to those who seem to be against him just how the Supreme Deity should be worshiped." As these words indicate, the emperor now saw himself as more than a secular ruler; he was also God's emissary, empowered to unify his church. Constantine never went to Africa. He continued to vacillate between the urges to tolerate Donatism and to quash it. But in 316 he ruled in favor of Caecilian; the following year he not only ordered the confiscation of Donatist church property but also exiled the sect's leaders. Only three years after the Edict of Milan, the Roman state found itself once again the persecutor but this time in the name of Christian orthodoxy. Always the voice of the more humble classes, the Donatist movement held its ground. Carthage continued to be the scene of violent strife as Donatists tenaciously resisted, many choosing torture, imprisionment, and even death rather than submission to the "traitors." Eventually, Constantine gave up in disgust and in 321 revoked his anti-Donatist edict. He had learned a lesson. Abrogating his own Edict of Milan had proved futile. Never again would he attempt to squash a movement within the church, though, as the Arian conflict would soon demonstrate, he was always prone to underestimate the scope of sectarian disagreements. Constantine had failed in his first attempt to unify the church, but he had established his right as emperor to mediate ecclesiastical disputes. The Arian controversy While the Donatist controversy was raging in the West, another storm was brewing in Alexandria and elsewhere in the East. Like Donatism, it threatened to split the church; unlike Donatism, it involved a basic theological issue--the divinity of Christ. Once again, Constantine found himself embroiled in a heated debate within the church. At the center of this debate was Arius, an intelligent, independent, and popular presbyter in Alexandria. Like his predecessor Origen and other Christian theologians, Arius differed with numerous believers over the nature of the Son of God and his relation to God the Father. He taughtthat there was "One God who is alone unbegotten, alone eternal and alone without beginning." The Son of God, Arius said, was himself created and therefore must be subordinate to the Father. ("There was a time when he [the Son] was not," is how many summed up the Arian doctrine.) In effect, Arius was denying, if not the divinity, at least the coeternity of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, in order to maintain a basic monotheism. Other theologians held that the Son of God comes from "God himself," not "from the nonexistent," as Arius claimed. The Son of God is divine, and not only eternal, but eternally begotten, they explained. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, ordered Arius to stop preaching his views. It was too late. The tall, ascetic Arius, whose skills in philosophical debate were formidable, had won some strong support among the Christians in Alexandria, including the clergy. In 318, or a little later, a synod of nearly 100 Egyptian and Libyan bishops examined Arius' teachings, condemned him as a heretic, and excommunicated him. Arius was undaunted. He gained support for his views from Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and others. Just as Donatism had split the Western church, Arianism threated to divide the East into two theological camps. Constantine's showdown with Licinius Divisions with the church were not Constantine's only worry. The alliance between him and Licinius had been tarnished by mutual distust and even outright warring. As early as 314 the two had clashed over control of Italy. Thatdispute settled by arms, there followed five or six years of amicable relations. But Licinius' growing mistreatment of Christians drove a wedge into the alliance. Licinius in 320 withdrew his favor from the Christians, who, he suspected, owed their loyalty to Constantine rather than to himself. Throughout the empire's Eastern territories, he prohibited church synods (only at such gatherings could new bishops be consecrated), forbade women and men to worship together, and, for what he said were public health reasons, decreed that Christians could not meet in churches within a city; they must worship outdoors, beyond the walls. Bishops were imprisoned; church buildings were closed and even destroyed. Licinius also mandated a pagan sacrifice to qualify for civil service, effectively barring Christians. Licinius' persecution of Christians gave Constantine an excuse to move against his co-emperor and to realize a long-cherished goal, total domination of the empire. When Constantine marched into Trace to attack bands of marauding Goths in January 323, Licinius accused him of violating his territory. The die was cast; civil war was declared. Constantine treated it more like a holy war than a civil war. He enlisted the aid of Christian bishops and brought with him a private chapel for use during the campaign. An elite guard of 50 soldiers was entrusted with Constantine's Christian military standard, the labarum. They were instructed to bring it wherever danger threatened. According to Eusebius, no soldier who ever carried it during a battle was killed. Constantine marshaled 130,00 troops, Licinius, 165,000. The war began in 324, when the two armies clashed at Adrianople (modern Edirne, Turkey). Although outnumbered, Constantine's troops fought valiantly and defeated their opponents. Byzantium fell to Constantine, and at Chrysopolis, on September 18, the war was decided after Licinius' troops were decimated. Constantine spared his brother-in-law at first but later ordered his execution. The road to Nicaea Constantine had won his civil war, but religious unity would prove to be a more elusive goal. Chief among the troubles was the Arian controversy. Constantine was determined to end it as fast as he could. At first he accused Arius and Alexander of arguing merely for the sake of arguing. In a letter to them he called the controversy "perfectly inconsequential and quite unworthy." Obviously, Constantine did not grasp the complexity of the theological issues. He did wish that they could be speedily resolved, however. "Give me back peaceful nights and days without care," he wrote, "that I too may keep some pleasure in the pure light and the joy of a tranquil life henceforth." Constantine dispatched his letter to Alexander and Arias in the care of his ecclesiastical counselor, Ossius, the bishop of Cordoba. In 312, after suffering in the persecution under Maximian, Ossius had joined Constantine's court and reportedly played a major role in his conversion to Christianity. After delivering the emperor's somewhat condescending letter and investigating the matter firsthand, Ossius decided to ally himself with Bishop Aleander against Arius. He attended, and perhaps presided over, a synod in Antioch that issued a declaration condemning Arius and his followers. At the same meeting Eusebius of Caesarea was excommunicated for his qualified support of Arius; the dispute showed no signs of abating. It had spread from Alexandria into Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. No longer could Constantine term it "inconsequential." To settle the controversy, in 325 Constantine summoned bishops and their representatives to join him at what should be the first--and most famous--general council in the history of the Christian church, the Council of Nicaea. Messengers were dispatched from Rome to Bishops in every corner of the empire with Constantine's summons to "assemble ... without delay in anything" at a small city in Bithynia with an agreeable climate (modern Iznik in northwestern Turkey). This choice of venue would enable Constantine to "be near to watch and take part in the proceedings," as he put it in his summons. The message was one of urgency, and envoys were offered free use of public conveyances to go to the council (a privilege that soon became common practice). More than 200 answered the call. Only a scattering of representatives came from the West. (For the next several centuries, controversies in which the nature of Christ was at issue proved to be a peculiarly Eastern, in other words, Greek, preoccupation.) Pleading poor health, Bishop Sylvester of Rome sent two envoys to represent him. Besides Ossius of Cordoba and Caecilian of Carthage, the two or three other Westerners who came were outnumbered by the delegation from Egypt, by the 100 or so from Asia Minor, and by some 20 from Palestine; but they were sufficient to make the Council of Nicaea the first true ecumenical council of the Christian church. All leading scholars and theologians of the Eastern Empire came, including Eusebius of Caesarea (the powerful Arian bishop who occasionally served as Constantine's adviser), Alexander of Alexandria, and Marcellus of Ancyra (modern Ankara). Some, such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, were, and would remain in spite of the way they voted in Nicaea, sympathetic to Arius' views. However, most of the delegates were simple servants of the church, conservative and perhaps anti-intellectual, or at least mistrustful of change. Some bore the title of "confessor," bestowed upon them for their sufferings under persecution. The Council of Niaea On a late spring morning in 325 the bishops filled the great hall of Nicaea's imperial residence. Waiting for the emperor, they took their places, which were assigned according to rank, on benches that ran down both sides of the hall. At a sign, all rose, and Constantine, now about 45 years old, entered, wrapped in his imperial robes. He must have cut an impressive figure, with his broad shoulders, firm jaw, and manly bearing. Without guards, eh walked to a small gilded chair in the middle of the hall and invited the bishops to be seated. With equal deference, the bishops indicated that the emperor should have precedence in sitting down. To resolve the predicament, everyone sat down simultaneously. There are no surviving contemporary descriptions of the proceedings at the Council of Nicaea. According to later accounts, however, feelings over the Arian question ran high, and debate was acrimonious. Some bishops held their hands over their ears when Arius spoke. Constantine himself reportedly referred later to Arius as "that shameless servant of the Devil" and to the theology of his own adviser and Arian sympathizer, Eusebius of Nicomedia, as "drunken railing." Did the emperor lose his temper during the actual sessions at Nicaea? It is easy to imagine him absenting himself, yet the sources say that he stuck out all two months of meetings to the end. At this distance in time, the theological issue in the Arian controversy may seem to have been merely a matter of semantics. But in fact it touched the very heart of Christianity at a moment when the church was struggling to satisfy two distinct needs. One the one hand, the church had given the world a monotheistic religion available to everybody; on the other hand, it distinguished itself clearly from Judaism by its belief in the divinity of Christ. How divine was he? If he was fully divine, were there not two Gods? Or, counting the Holy Spirit, three Gods? Arius was so much a monotheist that, in his eagerness to preserve the singularity of God the Father, he felt he had to deny something--not divinity exactly, but coeternity--to Christ the Son. The classic Arian formula was: "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence; hence it is clear that there was a time when the Son was not. It follows then of necessity that he had his existence from the non-existent." That is, Christ, unlike God, came from nothing; hence, the Son was subordinate to the Father. To many church members who, like Arius himself, had embraced the notion of a Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, resurrected from the dead, and risen to sit at the right hand of the Father, this view seemed both reasonable and scriptural, while to others it was not just wrongheaded, it was outright heresy.
In an attempt to walk a middle line between factions, Eusebius of Caesarea offered a baptismal creed that had long been traditional in Palestine and Syria. This creed went in part as follows: We believe in one God, the Father, almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, light from light, life from life, only-begotten Son, first-born of all creation, begotten from the Father before all the ages, by whom also all things are made, who for our salvation was made flesh and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. And we believe also in one Holy Spirit. While Constantine approved of this profession of faith, many bishops who had come to Nicaea for the express purpose of condemning Arianism complained that it seemed to incorporate both the orthodox and Arian views. Indeed, the Arian bishops found nothing in it they could not subscribe to. So the conservative side demanded a creed that clearly excluded Arius' ideas. The solution came from an unexpected quarter. Constantine's decisive intervention Could not the creed be amended to include the word homoousios ("consubstantial," or "of the same substance"), Constantine suggested, when describing the relationship of the Father to the Son? It was a loaded (and already much debated) word, which had been used by certain third-century Christians who were condemned for denying the Trinity. There was also widespread popular opposition to the term because it was not in the Scriptures. Putting it forward in this way was not only audacious on Constantine's part but a deft political move, for no matter what else Arians were ready to tolerate in a conciliar creed, this term, in particular, Arius himself had rejected in his recent formal declaration of faith. So the great advantage of this word, from the standpoint of anti-Arians, the majority at Nicaea, was that it was absolutely unacceptable to Arians. Eventually, no doubt due to the emperor's prestige and powers of persuasion as well as the threatof excommunication, all but Arius and two of the council's bishops went along with Constantine's suggestion. The final version read: We believe in one God, the Father, almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only-begotten from the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance [homoousios] with the Father, through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down and became flesh, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead; And the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, "There was when he was not," and "Before being born he was not," and that he came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different reality or substance, or is subject to alteration or change--these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes. This last sentence contains four anathemas, or ecclesiastical condemnations, against four of the major Arian tenents. It was for this kind of statement that the anti-Arian bishops had been holding out. Even if they had doubts about Constantine's homoousios, they must have been pleased with the anathemas. Though the Arian controversy continued to fester, the Council of Nicaea had set a historic precedent as the first ecumenical Christian council. Its decisions became church orthodoxy, upon which future generations would base their worship. Christianity had, in its triumph over paganism, found its voice, and Constantine as its official spokesman was more committed now than ever to Christianizing the empire. How today's Nicene Creed evolved Today's version of the Nicene Creed, the only Christian creed accepted as authoritative by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and major Protestant churches, bears a general resemblance to the original. Subsequent to the meeting in Nicaea, however, it underwent some changes. Two other councils were apparently vital to the development of the Nicene Creed as we know it today, though details are blurred by the passage of centuries. The official proceedings of a council called in 451 at Chalcedon refer not only to the fathers who met in Nicaea but also to the "150 who met at a later date." Scholars believe the latter is a reference to a council that met in Constantinople in 381 to deal with new questions that had arisen in the 56 years since Nicaea. No one can say if the creed was simply reaffirmed at Constantinople or significantly revised, but we do know that by 451, when it was promulgated at Chalcedon, the creed was recognizably the one we know today. (This version, called the Nicene Creed by most people, is referred to by some historians as the Niceno-Constantinoplitan Creed.) The anti-Arian anathemas were gone from the new version, so that the creed was unspoiled by any note of discord. It had been rewritten to begin with the creation and end with the life of the world to come. Also there was now a paragraph on the Holy Spirit. The only thing added to the creed after Chalcedon was the so-called Filioque clause (Latin for "and [from] the Son") to the effect that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son." This clause represented yet another effort toclaim full divinity for Christ. The clause never took hold in the Eastern churches, where it was considered theologically incorrect; but otherwise, the version since Chalcedon is identical with what is now known as the Nicene Creed. We believe in one God, the Father, almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance [homoousios] with the Father, through whom all things came into being, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and became flesh from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for our sake under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end; And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son (Filioque)], who spoke through the prophets; and in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. The creed is used by Western churches in the eucharistic liturgy and for both baptism and the Eucharist in Easter churches. Its concise, elegant phrases have echoed Christian faith throughout the age. Taken from pages 212-223 After Jesus: The Triumph of Christianity An excellent book for your library and Amazon.com has hundreds of used copies for sell for only a penny. You just pay the shipping. [to be continued ... ]
|
up 